Ta-152 vs Spit 14

[Crumpp]

To accelerate it, the heavier fighter needs more energy.

Yes, but DRAG is also a factor.  That is why the heavier FW-190A3 had the same, better, or worse accelleration at a given altitude as the Spit IX.  The FW-190's wieght AND power increased accordingly.
It actually gained less weight over it's lifecycle than the Spit V to Spit IX did.

At the same SPEED a 190 has more energy than a Spitfire.

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

In fact the tactical trials show a completely different story.  The FW-190A3 outaccellerated the Spit V under all flight conditions.


 

Where does the energy come from?

In physics mass in motion converts to kinetic energy and is called inertia.

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

The spit has more drag.  I have posted the analysis by an aeronautical engineer several times.  I have to run some errands when I get back I will dig it up and post it again.

If you can add the power without the weight, that's beneficial, yes?

Yes but not in the same way.  It's not only apples and oranges but a diminishing return effect with prop fighters.  That is why you will never see a modern turboprop fighter.  You have to dump huge amounts of horsepower into a prop fighter to get small gains in performance.  World War II fighters were reaching the apex of prop fighter limitations.

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.

For the Angle fight, Yes.  Going up against an energy fighter than already possessed verticle fight advantages it did nothing to close that performance gap.  It did increase the low altitude ability of the Spitfire somewhat as was it's goal.

the disadvantages still outweighed the advantages

No they don't.  That is why Aeronautical engineers have always been willing to add some weight and power to fighter designs.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

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.

Actually that is not true, Angus.  It is significantly off in AH.

Crumpp

[GRUNHERZ]

If the Spit V was so good why were the Brits so desperate that they were willing to risk the lives of dozens of commados to steal an FW190 from a german airbase in France...

The fact is FW190 scared the crap out of the RAF, the Spit V was horribly inferior in every way except the flat turn - and you guys know what RAF pilots said about turn performance and winning fights...

[thrila]

aaargh! a perfectly good thread turned into a horribly geeky one.  The thread was decent when it was about the AH spit 14 and ta152.

I used to show threads like these to my ex gf to prove i'm not as geeky as she says i am.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Nashwan
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.

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

Yeah, in Nashwanworld.

Quote from: "How to make full use of the Spitfire V, VI and IX" - Air Tactics, Air Ministry, Aug 1942 :

"2, At the present stage of war, the enemy in France is equipped with the FW 190, a fighter with an excellent rate of climb and good acceleration. (...)

5, The acceleration of the Spitfire is relatively poor. It is therefore dangeours  to cruise at, say, +2 boost and 1900 rpm, when the Hun is about, because the time taken in acceleration to maximum speed will allow him quickly to draw into firing range."

And, AFDU trials, FW 190A-3 vs. Mk V:


"52, Manouveribility : (...) The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight, and this must obviously be an advantage in combat."



NashwanWorld, and the Real World, two completely different things. In NashwanWorld, the D-9 was rushed into production, because the LW was so impressed by the Mark V Spitfire`s record vs. the Fw 190.

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

Probably that`s why the Spitfire V is a good deal slower than the Fw 190 on the same power.

Probably that`s why Spitfires always had relatively low max. cruise speeds, and FW 190s very high ones.

In fact, the FW 190A`s drag is very impressive: on 1800PS it does only a few km/h less speed than the sleeker inline engined 109G-14 at the same power!

[MiloMorai]

"late war, some of the Spitties would easily be able to give the 190 a bad headache."

For sure.


Fw190A-8 (4300kg) / Spitfire JL165

2400rpm, 1.32 ata

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

2700rpm, 1.42 ata

6km - 7.5min /    4.97min, +17.1lb   
7km - 9.2min / 6.0min, +13lb
8km - 11.4min / 7.2min, +8.6lb

2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata

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

Spitfire JL165

Maximum rate of climb in M.S. gear (radiator flaps open)   = 5080 ft/min up to 500 feet
      Maximum rate of climb in F.S. gear (radiator flaps open)   = 4335 ft/min at 11,400 feet
      Maximum rate of climb in F.S. gear (radiator flaps shut)   = 4750 ft/min at 11,400 feet


Even at 1.58/1.65 used by the 190, the Spit was faster to altitude. At SL the best RoC(Fw190A-8) was only 3405ft/m.

[Urchin]

Uh huh... I went WOW, look at all the debate about the Ta-152 vs Spit 14.  Now I come in here and there is all this egg-head **** splattered everywhere about the RL Spit 5 vs 190A-3.  

BTW, I'm no scientist... and I just took Physics last fall and got a C so that probably means I'm not real good at it, but Nashwan's argument seems to make a hell of a lot more sense than Crumpps.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by GScholz
The La-7 is unperked because of its severe range limitations and poor high alt performance.

If one considers 420 mph at 21,000 feet poor performance. Let's face it, 95% of all engagements in AH2 are below 20,000 feet.

The answer to the La-7 is the P-63A Kingcobra. Similar climb and low-level speed, but the P-63 is nearly as maneuverable as the FM-2. Add four .50 cal MGs and a 37mm cannon.

These two fighters would be very equal except that the La-7 could not afford to turn-fight with the P-63, and the P-63 has a big range advantage, plus the ability to haul a 500 pound bomb (or a drop tank).

So, how fast does the P-63A climb? Well, for comparison, let's look at the F6F-5. It requires 7.7 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet. In contrast, the P-63A can get to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes! The P-51D requires near twice as long (13 minutes) to reach 30,000 feet.

When the Soviets first began flying the P-63, they found the tail to be weaker than that of the P-39. Bell developed a kit for strengthening the tail and Bell technicians made field modifications to those planes in service. That change was immediately incorporated into the production line as well.

Pilots who flew the P-63, and had time in the other major U.S. types, generally agreed that the P-63 was far and away the best performer at low to medium altitudes. Not surprising, the pilots flying it at the Joint Fighter Conference differed from rave reviews to outright dislike (the only thing the JFC ever proved was that every monkey prefers his own banana).

Since more than 3,300 P-63s were built, and it saw combat (with the Free French and Soviets) in far greater numbers than the F4U-1C or Ta 152H, I think it would be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the AH2 plane-set someday.

My regards,

Widewing

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Urchin
Uh huh... I went WOW, look at all the debate about the Ta-152 vs Spit 14.  Now I come in here and there is all this egg-head **** splattered everywhere about the RL Spit 5 vs 190A-3.

We done been hijacked.

[GRUNHERZ]

Dont think P63 saw much combat. IIRC the soviets only used them in the last few days of the war in asia.. And the French never used them in ww2 combat.

[Angus]

Hmmm, this thread was originally about the Ta & the 14.
Ok, typically, Spits vs 190's

Grunherz hit a point, why were the RAF pilots so scared of the 190 when it appeared?
Well, it was an unknown aircraft with an unknown performance, it's pilots however knew the Spitties performance. The Spit V we have in AH is the final and finest of that mark while actually the fine 190's appearing in 1941, usually under favourable conditons in combat, were facing earlier mk V's (less power, worse roll) and even Mk II's. The British understandably were ready for anything to learn about that new foe.
BTW when Göring heard about single engine and fast fighters deep inside Germany for the first time he first banned the news, - later he commented "It's lost". Those were P51's.

Widewing commented about the Kingcobra. Now that would be something for the AH planeset, - A p39 on steroids basically.!!


Then on to the climbing debate.
From these numbers for the 190 (the finest ones of the set):

"2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata
6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min"

This is very much inferior to even some Merlin powered Spits. In fact more inferior than the numbers I grabbed for my comparison here before. Fact remains that in sustained climb the 190 was no match for 1943 onwards spitties.
Now where is that Spitfire performance thread again ???

[MiloMorai]

"BTW when Göring heard about single engine and fast fighters deep inside Germany for the first time he first banned the news, - later he commented "It's lost"."

He also said he could be called Meyer if Allied a/c flew over Berlin.

Angus, read the Osprey "No 91 'Nigeria' Squadron book. Chap 2 is about the introduction of the Fw190. There was no problem with the 109F for the Spit V but the 190 was a real headache.

2cd week of Jan 1942

FltLt Fletcher, 'B' Flight OC, was flying a recce mission between Paris and Boulogne when he spotted a fighter. He gave chase, but dispite full throttle could not gain on the a/c. He boke off and returned to Hawkinge.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Angus


"2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata
6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min"

Even an early Tempest (JN731, the 3rd produced) could better these Fw190A-8 numbers:

6km - 6.8min > 6.6min
7km - 8.6min > 8.2min
8km - 10.7min > 10.2min

http://home.epix.net/~cap14/tp.html

And, that is with an early model of the Sabre.

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/engines.htm

[Nashwan]

Then on to the climbing debate.
From these numbers for the 190 (the finest ones of the set):

"2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata
6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min"

The Spitfire Vc with 4 20 mm cannon could reach 6km in about 6 mins 5 sec.

8km took about 9 min 30 secs.

That's for a 1942 Spit with 4 Hispanos.

Reducing that to 2 cannon increased the climb rate by about 8%.

That would mean 6km in about 5 mins 40, 8km in 8 min 45 sec.

[Crumpp]

Nashwan,


It's spelled out in black and white here:

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

Read about the physics and forces of climbing here:

http://www.av8n.com/how/


Nobody is saying that the Spit Mk IX did not have a faster climb rate.  That is a fact.

Let me explain it ONE MORE TIME and PLEASE READ THE SCIENCE!

If we all flew gliders you could all understand this.  Nobody is used to watching a “total energy variometer”, if we had TE Variometers this would make perfect sense to you.

The Spit does have a much slower best climb speed.  That is a fact.  The FW-190A8's best climb speed is around 182 mph.  The Spit IX LF is 170 at best dropping quickly with altitude.  

At a shallower angle and faster speed the than the spit the FW-190 reaches it's "rent free" zone in a sustained climb.  If a spit points it's nose DIRECTLY at the FW-190 it will be out climbed because it cannot maintain the same VSI at the same AOA.  It has to climb at a different AoA to get the same VSI.

If the spit cannot add any more power to the climb then he will pay the price in Airspeed.  The TOP of the any A/C's power curve IS its best climb speed.  That means the Spit wants to be going 170mph in the climb!  The point where the maximum angle of climb and the top of the power curve meet is the best climb rate!  Because the power curve is flat at the top, he will quickly find himself climbing at a shallower angle at 170mph.

So we have no gun solution and at the same VSI and the FW-190 is moving faster along the same vector. The spit gets out climbed.

Only way to reach the same VSI and angle is that both A/C are at the same point on the power curve.  This would occur in a bounce when the FW-190 is climb at 1.32ata (climb and combat power) and the Spit comes in at full boost underneath it.  

The ONLY way a Spit will be out climbed by an FW-190 is if he points his directly at the 190 and tries to follow him up.  

If the Spit driver immediately goes for his best climb angle and speed he will readily out climb the 190.

Excellent example of how thrust effects climb:


 

From one of those links Crummp likes us to see.

 Fw190A-8 (4300kg) / Spitfire JL165

2400rpm, 1.32 ata

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

2700rpm, 1.42 ata

6km - 7.5min / 4.97min, +17.1lb
7km - 9.2min / 6.0min, +13lb
8km - 11.4min / 7.2min, +8.6lb

2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata

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

When the FW-190 received more thrust it's angle of climb increased BUT it's Best climb speed stayed the same.

Check out the spitfires best climb speeds:

Spit V Merlin XLV - 170mph IAS - 6,450lb TO wt

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/x4922.html

Spit V Merlin 45 (+16) - 170mph IAS- 6,945lb TO wt

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

Spit Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) - 170mph IAS 7400 lbs TO wt.

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

Last post on the subject in this thread. If you reply Nashwan please start a new thread.  
Crumpp