Author Topic: Ta-152 vs Spit 14  (Read 6605 times)

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #45 on: August 21, 2004, 07:53:14 AM »
Quote
Only reason the Spits have such an advantage in AH is because of the climb physics modeling. Their zoom climbs are way too good and they don't pay "rent" in the sustained climb like they should. With the exception of the Spitfire Mk XII/XIV, all of the Merlin powered spits sustained climb was steep and slow.


Steep climb angles are an advantage, not a disadvantage.

If you have a shallow fast climb, it's fairly easy for another fighter to follow, with a nice long shooting opportunity.

If you have a steep climb angle, it's hard for other fighters to follow, and if they try, they stall.

In a sustained climb, a Spit will have a long time of shooting at a 190, the 190 will have a brief snapshot before he stalls.

Quote
The Spitfire Mk XII maybe. The Spit VIII and the IX LF (+25) I have to disagree.


Crumpp, you are the only person I can recall who has ever suggested extra weight in a fighter is a good thing.

At low altitudes, the Spit IX at 25 lbs and the Spit XIV at 18 lbs put out similar power, yet you maintian the XIV is better because it's 1,000 lbs heavier.

Quote
I wonder how could a XIV turn with a Mk IX, when the XIV weights 8500 lbs, the IX weights only 7400 lbs, and their power-to-weight ratio is very similiar, plus the XIV has more drag...?


Much more thrust.

The XIV had the thrust to lift it's extra 1000 lbs at the same rate as the IX. That thrust produces much more lift over the wing. Note the differences between power on and power off stall. You get much more lift with power on.

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2004, 08:11:02 AM »
Much more thrust.

The XIV had the thrust to lift it's extra 1000 lbs at the same rate as the IX. That thrust produces much more lift over the wing. Note the differences between power on and power off stall. You get much more lift with power on.


That explains why the has XIV  sustained climbs as good as the IX at low levels, but not why it would it allegedly turn as well as the IX. Climb rate isn`t an indicator of turn rate. If it would, the FW 190 would have been excellent turners.

Turn rate is determined by liftloading and powerloading. With lower liftloading, the aircraft has to maintain higher speed, with lower powerloading, it can make up less well for decelerating in the turn.

In the former, the XIV is worser than the IX, and in the latter, it ain`t any better. You are the only person who suggest extra weight has no effect on manouveribility.

Physics and even common sense tell that the XIV couldn`t turn with the MkIXs, unless we speak of a sustained turn.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #47 on: August 21, 2004, 08:26:41 AM »
Quote
Steep climb angles are an advantage, not a disadvantage.



A steep climb angle is an advantage. A slow climb speed is not.


      A Spitfire will out climb a 190 no problem.  It just can't do it by pointing it's nose at the 190.  IF it does the spitfire will soon find itself left behind with the 190 above it.  That's how the physics work.  Angle for angle the spitfire pays more rent up until the 190 reaches best climb speed.  Without an increase in power speed drops, as speed drops angle of attack has to be increased to maintain angle of pitch.  As the angle of attack increases, speed drops, so on and so forth until the forces balance out in the rent free zone or best climb speed.  If you did not have to maintain that angle of pitch then of course you climb at a shallower angle and faster speed in the Spitfire.  In order to get a shot at the 190 though, you have to maintain that angle of pitch.  To adjust for the angle of attack increase the spitfire has to sink below the 190 even further.

In reality no airplane with a slower best climb speed can follow a faster best climbing speed A/C directly.  Now if your climb speed is the same or greater then you pay less/same rent angle for angle and can directly follow.

Quote
At low altitudes, the Spit IX at 25 lbs and the Spit XIV at 18 lbs put out similar power, yet you maintian the XIV is better because it's 1,000 lbs heavier.


It has a lot more potential energy at the same speed as the Spit IX.  That potential energy is easy to convert to kinetic Energy by a zoom climb.  All with the same manuerability.

Physics...

Quote
Since we are about to start comparing these mechanical forms of energy with other forms, we must start paying attention to an additional detail: an object’s potential energy depends not only on its altitude but also on its mass. A 300-ton Boeing at any given altitude has 300 times more potential energy than a 1-ton Piper at the same altitude.


http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.html

Crumpp

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #48 on: August 21, 2004, 08:41:19 AM »
The heavy P-47 should not be able to out turn a Spit either but the mock combat between a P-47 and a Spit had the P-47 out turning the Spit. There is more than one way to make a turn. The P-47, and the P-51, used the same manuever against the 109.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #49 on: August 21, 2004, 09:24:12 AM »
Crumpp:
"they don't pay "rent" in the sustained climb like they should"
Our Spit XIV does not climb either as well  as it should. While banking, Spits don't climb as well  as they should either.
What exactly do you mean with paying rent?
Izzy:
"I wonder how could a XIV turn with a Mk IX, when the XIV weights 8500 lbs, the IX weights only 7400 lbs, and their power-to-weight ratio is very similiar, plus the XIV has more drag...?

Kinda like saying that IX turns just the same with 1100 lbs bombs attached and without. "

Flight tests state that the Turn ability was the same.Ok, like the IX with the bomb attached, but you forget 400 Hp of power to compensate. Of course you do......
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2004, 09:26:14 AM »
Quote
A steep climb angle is an advantage. A slow climb speed is not.


If you have the same climb rate, but a lower climb speed, then the angle will be steeper.

Low climb speed is a function of steep climb angle.

Quote
A Spitfire will out climb a 190 no problem. It just can't do it by pointing it's nose at the 190. IF it does the spitfire will soon find itself left behind with the 190 above it.


Depends on the Spitfire.

Any altitude where the Spitfire is as fast or faster, it will be able to climb at the same angle as the 190, as well as outclimb it at a steeper angle.

There are certainly altitudes where the 190 will be able to pull away from the Spitfire in a climb, but gradually. OTOH, the Spit will be able to climb away from the 190 at a steeper angle that the 190 cannot follow for more than a few seconds without stalling.

Quote
In reality no airplane with a slower best climb speed can follow a faster best climbing speed A/C directly.


You've got that the wrong way around.

A shallow climber like the 190 cannot climb with a steep climber, because it has to increase it's angle of climb to a rate it cannot sustain.

A steep climber can always reduce it's angle of climb, it's just at the same angle it's speed may not be as high, allowing the faster aircraft to climb away.

But the difference in climb speed will not be great, and how long do you think it will take to open a gap at less than 10 mph difference?

Quote
Now if your climb speed is the same or greater then you pay less/same rent angle for angle and can directly follow.


Not at all.

If the Spit climbs at 160 mph, and 4700 ft/min, it's obviosuly got a very steep angle.

In comparison, the 190 climbs at say 180 mph, and at say 4000 ft/min (these are guesses for the 190).

The 190 is going a faster speed, but in the same time travelling less vertical distance. It's angle is much less.

To stay with the Spit in climb, the 190 has to steepen the angle to the Spiit's.

If the 190 climbs best at 180, say 4000 ft/min, it will climb somewhat worse at 170, so by matching the Spitfire's angle, it is reducing it's climb rate below best. That means the 700 ft/min advantage the Spit has becomes greater, and the Spitfire can always increase the angle untill the 190 cannot follow, and stalls.

OTOH, the Spit to climb with the 190 has to reduce it's angle, and increase it's speed. That means it has to climb at say 180 mph, like the 190. Obviously, the Spit will have a lower climb rate than it did, but not necessarily lower than the 190, because it has a large climb advantage over the 190 to begin with.

Quote
It has a lot more potential energy at the same speed as the Spit IX. That potential energy is easy to convert to kinetic Energy by a zoom climb.


Look at it the other way. If you have more potential energy, you have to put more potential energy in. IE you need extra power. If you have the same power, higher weight you suffer in acceleration.

WW2 fighters were built as light as practical. Any fighter could easily have been made heavier, with the simple addition of extra armour. Yet normal fighters didn't carry extra armour, beyond the bare minimum for the pilot/ fuel tanks.

Adding weight to a fighter makes it worse, not better. It might dive and zoom a bit better, but in all other performance parameters it will be worse.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2004, 09:55:39 AM »
Nashwan, right on:aok

Watch out top speeds at alt though. A faster aircraft will be able to climb shallowly at another aircrafts top speed. I.e. P38 vs A6m.
That, the 190 could do with many models of Spitties at certain alts.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2004, 10:52:14 AM »
The problem with climbing steep/at low speed is that it will present you as a target long enough for the enemy to shread you. He won`t stall at the moment when he points his nose up. He has quite a few seconds to aim before that happens, and that`s more than enough for any experienced pilot to get a kill. He will pull the nose up, fire, shred the plane to pieces, and yes, stall after all that happened.

Between good climbing planes the climb difference is marginal, 1-2 m/sec. Yep, after ten seconds, you maybe gain 120m altitude, and the other guy 100m altitude. 20m altitude difference is next to nothing, but they guy also came closer to you in the horizontal plane, as his climb speed is higher.

This is especially true at higher altitudes, where the vertical climb speeds are marginal, but the horizontal speeds at the climb is performed are quite large, ca. 350-400 km/h TAS. At high alts, thus trying to climb away is BAD idea, because you will be catched with his greater speed well before you outclimb him.

I always prefer to climb ~30 km/h faster than my best climb speed, for it makes me to extend faster at the critical initial phase of the climb, and also I am not so much compromized to make a manouver if neccesary at those very low speeds.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2004, 11:35:57 AM »
Quote
"they don't pay "rent" in the sustained climb like they should"


The forces of flight must always be at equilibrium in order to maintain a constant position.  The best climb speed is where those forces are at balance.  Above or below that speed you pay a penalty for maintaining a constant position.  

Beginning a sustained climb in combat when you are WEP means you have no more power to pay into when you are in the power zone.  So you pay it in airspeed.  As the Airspeed drops the angle of attack must increase to maintain the same angle of pitch.  As you increase the angle of attack you pay even more penalties so your airspeed drops further attempting to maintain a constant angle of pitch.  In the end your plane ends up at equilibrium climbing at a sharper angle but slower speed below the other A/C.

This is because at shallow angles of attack the higher best climb speed pays less rent.  Angle for angle he is closer to his equilibrium point.

In order to out climb a 190 the spit driver has to  crank his nose up and climb at his equilibrium point, which is slower but much steeper.   He will lose sight of the 190 under his nose but will soon be above it.  

Now the opposite is true if the 190 attempts to follow the Spit in a sustained climb.  The 190 cannot maintain that angle of pitch and drops off into the mushing realm of the curve.  Stalling out in the end.  

Quote
If you have the same climb rate, but a lower climb speed, then the angle will be steeper.


That is correct Nashwan.  Nobody is saying the FW-190 has a higher climb rate than the spitfire.   When both A/C are at their best climb speed/angle, the Spitfire has a much higher climb rate.

A Merlin Powered Spit just cannot DIRECTLY follow a 190 for any length of time and either shoot OR get above the 190.

 
Quote
Low climb speed is a function of steep climb angle.


Low climb speed is a function of mass.  Look at the Spit XIV.  It climbs at both a steeper angle and a faster speed.  The higher the mass the faster the speed.  Add more thrust the steeper the angle raises.

Quote
Any altitude where the Spitfire is as fast or faster, it will be able to climb at the same angle as the 190, as well as outclimb it at a steeper angle.


We have to assume a co-energy situation otherwise all bets are off.  If the spit has altitude or is faster then it has more energy.  Consequently if the 190 has altitude then its advantages are amplified accordingly.  IN a co-energy state the Spitfire cannot directly follow a 190 that is at his best climb speed or higher.

Quote
A steep climber can always reduce it's angle of climb, it's just at the same angle it's speed may not be as high, allowing the faster aircraft to climb away.


You're absolutely right BUT he cannot maintain the same angle of pitch. If he matches the angle of pitch then his angle of attack will be different and his sights are not on the 190.  Trying to keep his sights on the 190 and maintaining that constant angle of pitch is what keeps the forces from reaching equilibrium.  His angle of attack to maintain the same angle of pitch will be very different.

So he cannot get a gun solution.  

Now the 190 is climbing at a faster speed and is leaving the spitfire behind.  The horizontal separation is becoming much larger and the vertical separation is slowly increasing due to the fact the planes are traveling the same angle of pitch but at different speeds.

 

Make sense now.

Quote
OTOH, the Spit to climb with the 190 has to reduce it's angle, and increase it's speed. That means it has to climb at say 180 mph, like the 190. Obviously, the Spit will have a lower climb rate than it did, but not necessarily lower than the 190, because it has a large climb advantage over the 190 to begin with.


See above AND:

As the website says.  This is one of the hardest concepts to get across to pilots because it seems like it should work exactly as you say.  It does not though.  The A/C wants to move to equilibrium.  That equilibrium is it's best climb speed and angle.  If it is outside of that point then it pays the price in airspeed until it reaches equilibrium.  That Airspeed is much lower than the 190's.

People get confused cause the top of the power curve is pretty flat and there is a wide range of angles.  That doesn't mean you will catch a faster climbing speed plane.  It just means a change of angle has little to no effect on speed.  You're not going any faster but you have a wider selection of angles to go the same speed.  The top of the power curve is much slower for the spit than the 190.

Climbing without adding power is a different set of rules from having the ability to raise the power curve.  If you at WEP then you have no more power to pay.

This is also why you will find pilot anecdotes supporting both positions.  It all depends on merging energy and initial throttle settings.

There are other factors which go into the equation like drag ratios and aspect ratios.  Both of which favor the FW-190.

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.html

Crumpp

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #54 on: August 21, 2004, 12:23:06 PM »
Quote
Look at it the other way. If you have more potential energy, you have to put more potential energy in. IE you need extra power. If you have the same power, higher weight you suffer in acceleration.


That is not how it works.

If that is the case then the FW-190A3 should have been handily outaccellerated by the Spit V.  It's not.

At the same speed more weight = more potential energy.  Accelleration also considers DRAG.  Which favours the 190.  That is why a 190 handily outzooms a Spit in co-energy state, it has more mass and less drag.

Again:

Quote
Since we are about to start comparing these mechanical forms of energy with other forms, we must start paying attention to an additional detail: an object’s potential energy depends not only on its altitude but also on its mass. A 300-ton Boeing at any given altitude has 300 times more potential energy than a 1-ton Piper at the same altitude.


Crumpp

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #55 on: August 21, 2004, 12:30:01 PM »
Quote
Adding weight to a fighter makes it worse, not better. It might dive and zoom a bit better, but in all other performance parameters it will be worse.


If you just add weight you are correct.  This is why the FW-190A5 is IMO the worst of the FW-190's.  It simply adds weight.

If you add weight and power, the equation changes.  Just look at the Spit XIV.  Not a whole lot of power in the Griffen 65(+18) compared to the Merlin 66 (+25) was added but a substantitial amount of weight.  Not a big loss of manuverability for a substantial gain in wingloading.

Weight by itself is bad, weight and power is not.

Same thing happenend in the FW-190A8.  It added power and weight at the same rate as the Merlin powered spits (V-IX).  It also added less wingloading overall because it's lifetime weightgain was less.

Crumpp

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #56 on: August 21, 2004, 12:31:08 PM »
Quote
A Merlin Powered Spit just cannot DIRECTLY follow a 190 for any length of time and either shoot OR get above the 190.


Quote
IN a co-energy state the Spitfire cannot directly follow a 190 that is at his best climb speed or higher.


Not strictly true. At any altitude where the Spit is as faster, or faster, than the 190, the Spit can match both the climb speed and angle of the 190. Even for altitudes where the Spitfire is slightly slower.

Look at it this way. At an altitude where the Spit and 190 have exactly the same top speed, for any given speed they will have similar percentages of excess power.

The Spitfire, being lighter, will have a higher climb rate.

That means the Spit can maintain the same climb speed as the 190, the same climb angle, with a lower throttle setting, or can maintain the same angle, and an increased speed, to climb faster than the 190 and thus overhaul it.

Quote
The best climb speed is where those forces are at balance.


The best climb speed is where the total of induced drag and parasitic drag are lowest. (afaik)

Quote
Low climb speed is a function of mass. Look at the Spit XIV. It climbs at both a steeper angle and a faster speed.


That what? Not than the Spit IX, depending on altitude. The climb rates were similar at lower alts, so if the speed is higher, the angle must be lower to maintain the same rate.

The Spit IX @25 lbs would have a considerably steeper climb rate than the Spit XIV at 18 lbs. Slightly slower speed, greater rate of climb (again at lower altitudes)

Quote
You're absolutely right BUT he cannot maintain the same angle of pitch. If he matches the angle of pitch then his angle of attack will be different and his sights are not on the 190.


His angle of attack for the same climb angle will be very similar. That's like saying in level flight the angle of attack will be different, so he can't keep the target in his sights. Any minor changes needed will be lost amongst the changes the pilot needs to make to keep control.

Quote
So he cannot get a gun solution.


Only in the same way he cannot get a guns solution in level flight. The angle of attack difference at the same cimb angle will need minor adjustments to correct.

In level flight or climb the trailing fighter always has to make such minor adjustments to bring his target under the sight.

Quote
Now the 190 is climbing at a faster speed and is leaving the spitfire behind.


Depends on the speeds at that altitude. At any altitude where the speeds are similar, or the Spit has an advantage, the Spit is not being left behind. If he is faster at that alt, he is actually reeling the 190 in whilst maintaining the same climb angle.

Quote
The horizontal separation is becoming much larger and the vertical separation is slowly increasing due to the fact the planes are traveling the same angle of pitch but at different speeds.


Yes, at those altitudes where the 190 has a speed advantage it can gain seperation from the Spit by maintaining a high speed climb. That's true for any fighter that is faster than it's opponent, providing the speed difference is great enough.

But that gives you minor seperation.

Look at it another way. If the Spit can climb at 170 mph at a much greater angle than the 190, then by reducing the angle to the same as the 190s, the Spit can certainly increase it's speed.

If it's can't maintain quite the same speed as the 190, it can still maintain a faster speed than it did before.

So if the 190 climbs at 180 mph, and the Spit at 170, then reducing the climb angle of the Spit will at least reduce the gap in climb speed between it and the 190.

What was the best climb speed of the 190?  The LF IX was 170 IAS.  If we assume 190 mph for the 190, then the gap is 20 mph, but the Spit can reduce climb angle and increase climb speed, so that gap is going to shrink rapidly.

Basically, if two planes have the same max climb rate, and one has a higher climb speed, then the slower cannot match it's angle and speed.

But if the slower has a much better rate , then by reducing angle it may still be able to match the faster's speed and angle.

In other words, the Spit has got an advantage to squander by climbing at the conditions that suit the 190, rather than the conditions that suit it.

Quote
As the website says. This is one of the hardest concepts to get across to pilots because it seems like it should work exactly as you say. It does not though. The A/C wants to move to equilibrium. That equilibrium is it's best climb speed and angle. If it is outside of that point then it pays the price in airspeed until it reaches equilibrium. That Airspeed is much lower than the 190's.


That assumes identical rates. You can always lower you climb angle, which means you use less power fighting gravity, and more into increasing airspeed. If you fly faster than your ideal climb speed, your ROC will go down, but if you have a large ROC advantage you can afford to do that.

Quote
There are other factors which go into the equation like drag ratios and aspect ratios. Both of which favor the FW-190.


Drag ratio doesn't, really. The RAE give figures for profile drag as 65 lbs (at 100 fps) for the 190, 66 for the Spit IX. Induced drag will favour the Spitfire because of weight and wingloading, far more so than the tiny advantage for the 190 due to it's marginally higher aspect ratio. In a climb you get more induced drag.

Short summary: The Spit can trade it's advantage in climb rate into matching higher climbing speeds, at a reduction in rate, and still match the 190 under most conditions.

Quote
The problem with climbing steep/at low speed is that it will present you as a target long enough for the enemy to shread you.


Depends on the enemy's speed as well. If you are both in a sustained climb, he cannot increase the angle for long without stalling. If he has plenty of speed, of course it won't work as a tactic. Then you need something to get an angles advatange.

But a sustained climb at higher speed leaves you vulnerable for longer, because you are only pulling away at 10 mph or less. It takes a long long time to get clear at a 10 mph advantage.

A fighter with a high angle of climb, like the Spit or 109, can steepen the angle to a degree that other fighters cannot maintain for more than a few seconds at most, and at those speeds they are going to have difficulty getting enough control authority to bring the sights to bear anyway.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #57 on: August 21, 2004, 12:38:40 PM »
Crumpp:
The climb trial data available is mostly from takeoff, so it has no zoom in it right.
Anyway, something from Izzy:
"The problem with climbing steep/at low speed is that it will present you as a target long enough for the enemy to shread you. He won`t stall at the moment when he points his nose up. He has quite a few seconds to aim before that happens, and that`s more than enough for any experienced pilot to get a kill. He will pull the nose up, fire, shred the plane to pieces, and yes, stall after all that happened. "

Now the best climbing speed of the 190 is not that much more than of many allied planes, and late war, some of the Spitties would easily be able to give the 190 a bad headache.
Imagine the 190 trying to use his high speed climb to climb away from a spitty,spitty countermaneuvers by climbing steeper and slower, but however more.
190 will draw away, Spitty will gain alt.
For the Merlin Powered ones, and I presume Crumpp refers to the 190A series.
"A Merlin Powered Spit just cannot DIRECTLY follow a 190 for any length of time and either shoot OR get above the 190. "

 I'd love to see time-to-alts, like 10K, 15K, 20K.
In a big band of say 0-20K a good Spitty (boosted IX or VIII) will be some thousand feets above. The 190 will be ahead with its 10 mph higher climbing speed. Spit will be above.
With a 10 mph speed difference (190 = 160 mph?) and a 1000 fpm (is that so unbelievable, VIII and IX w. 25 boost climb like our AH XIV?) that leaves the Spitty either 3000-5000 feet above and almost 2 Km behind,or  at same altitude with 1 minute to speed up and close the gap of roughly a mile. (That is easyly done, even at 160 mph)
These are rough numbers so I won't be hurt if  they get bounced around a bit, but I hope you see the point.
We have a lack of data, for we do not know enough about the Spit climb rate at 190's optimal speed. We also need the 190's times to alt, - anybody?
I'd love to put this into an excel graph showing position pr minute of climb. If I had the 190's time to alt, I could also find out the NM to alt.
Anyway, very interesting stuff and points.
Does anyone posess the P38 high speed climb data. Somehow I have 1500 fpm at 300 miles in my head.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #58 on: August 21, 2004, 12:40:20 PM »
Quote
That is not how it works.


That's exactly how it works. A fighter at rest on the runway has zero energy (relative to the earth). It will expend energy throughout the flight.

To accelerate it, the heavier fighter needs more energy.

Quote
If that is the case then the FW-190A3 should have been handily outaccellerated by the Spit V. It's not.


At lower speed the Spit V should easily accelerate better than the 190. Depending on boost, of course.

Quote
At the same speed more weight = more potential energy.


Where does the energy come from?

Quote
Which favours the 190. That is why a 190 handily outzooms a Spit in co-energy state, it has more mass and less drag.


No, the Spit V has less drag. According to the RAE, 63 lbs for the Spit V, 65 for the 190.

The 190 has a lower mass/drag ratio, which is what helps it dive.

Quote
If you add weight and power, the equation changes. Just look at the Spit XIV. Not a whole lot of power in the Griffen 65(+18) compared to the Merlin 66 (+25) was added but a substantitial amount of weight. Not a big loss of manuverability for a substantial gain in wingloading.

Weight by itself is bad, weight and power is not.


That still means extra weight is bad. If you can add the power without the weight, that's beneficial, yes?

The Spit @25 lbs had as much power low down as the Spit XIV< without the extra 1000 lbs weight. That's good, not bad. The extra weight is bad. IT might confer a dive/zoom advantage, but again any air force could do that simply by adding more armour. And they'd get a more damage resistant plane as well.

But they didn't. Whatever the advantages were in damage resistance and dive/zoom, the disadvantages still outweighed the advantages.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Ta-152 vs Spit 14
« Reply #59 on: August 21, 2004, 12:51:44 PM »
Angus

From one of those links Crummp likes us to see.

2400rpm, 1.32 ata

6km - 9.1min
7km - 11.4min
8km - 14.4min

2700rpm, 1.42 ata

6km - 7.5min
7km - 9.2min
8km - 11.4min

2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata

6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min