I assume e factor 0,9 for the Spitfire and 0,8 for the other two. BTW you claimed e factor 1 for the Spitfire above.
Key words:
I assume
Well, my calculations are based on true tested data and resulting speed at given altitude is exactly same as measured in the test as well as relative performance between planes.
So are David Lednicer's!
How do you explain your thrust calculations with bogus data?
I'm directly using that chart and it gives 1740 ps at sea level with RAM (2700rpm 1,42ata). And the critical altitude with RAM in the engine chart is 1400 m (same as in the A-8 speed chart) so I know that the curve is for top speed.
Then you are using "climb and combat power" not "emergency power" where the BMW 801D2 developed 2050hp at full throttle height.
You need to reread the Merlin 66 (+18) output at sea level. the chart is adjusted for 400mph RAM. I highly doubt the Spitfire could do 400mph at sea level.
1. You are not using the full power settings for the FW-190 or depending on the Spitfire either.
2. If you are using full power for the Spitfire then it is outclassed at all levels speeds except for a narrow band above 22,000 feet. It is much more in the hurt locker than Fabers FW-190A3 vs Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61 (+12) performance wise. If you compare it to the FW-190A5 (it's contemprary counterpart) it is even farther behind.
Fw 190 537 km/h (US Navy test)
US Navy Test is an FW-190A5 NOT an FW-190A8. You have added quite a bit of weight. This is easy to confirm in the fact that both aircraft are significantly faster at sea level using 1.42ata @ 2700U/min.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_speed.gifhttp://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190-1.jpgWell, my calculations are based on true tested data and resulting speed at given altitude is exactly same as measured in the test as well as relative performance between planes.
What makes you think the above test's are not actual in-flight test. You need to pay attention to the details in those reports. The BMW-801D2 did not like US AVGAS. It consistently fouled spark plugs and quit at altitude. Additionally the aircraft was a recovered wreck serviced by mechanics not familiar with the type.
"Do the math crumpp: That is the only thing that will even put a dent in this argument. We have all done the math. It is your turn."
I did the math Gripen, Again THAT issue is resolved.
The issue at hand is your attempting to assassinate David Lednicer's calculations and work.
So far you have not done any level turning calculations.
So far I have Gripen. See ABOVE.
Well, when someone says "less drag" it's a absolute scale not relative. And when someone says"lower Cd" it's a relative scale. So above you first admit that "It does NOT have less drag than the Spitfire" in the absolute scale. Great logic.
In fact Gripen the drag lines up nicely with history. FW-190's did not angle fight with Spitfires and Spitfires did not Energy fight with 190's.
Why? Aerodynamically the FW-190 had less drag in level flight while the Spitfire had less drag in the turn. Combined with the Mass/Drag advantage FW-190's left the Spitfire behind in the zoom climb.
Well, real world test data indicate that the Fw 190 had more drag (in absolute scale) than the Spitfire as pointed out above.
Again, David Lednicer uses real world tested data in his calculations. You forget that the WRONG drag data for the P51 was REAL WORLD TESTED! The test just did not include details like the engine exhaust stacks!
Besides, Lednicer's analysis contains no Cdi nor energy comparisons which are actually subject of this thread and which I have calculated above.
Exactly and we are not comparing energy. If that was the case the FW-190 would win hands down. It has a lot more potential energy just sitting on the field. When you calculate its Cdi it is always going to be higher as it is a heavier aircraft. It also has more mass to overcome that force and requires much more force to brake.
We are comparing High G break turn performance. The Spitfire and the 190 would be close in energy bleed. The P51 way ahead of both. The Spitfire could, depending on it's CL max, turn a tighter circle and both Aircraft would have significantly lower energy at the end of the turn.
Problem with turning at high speed for the spitfire would be it's poor roll performance. It's aileron reversal speed was 540 mph and it's stick forces were high enough that it could not even get near it's calculated speed of roll at 400 mph.
Crumpp
