Author Topic: 190A/F boosts (Read 3358 times)

Meyer · « **Reply #45 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:34:22 AM »

Actually, that chart belongs to the F-2

I have seen much better numbers for the G-2 , even the finnish test at 1.3ata (and with a fixed tailwheel) shows 522km/h at SL. Same with the K-4, who definitely did more than 550 at SL. I believe that the K-4 was faster than the A-8 at ALL altitudes.

But i guess we're just gonna have to wait until someone (Isegrim?

) comes with the evidence

Crumpp · « **Reply #46 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:10:06 PM »

The G-2 is from Izzy. Feel free to look. Facts are that at low altitude the FW-190 was faster.

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #47 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:25:50 PM »

Can't recall exactly, but wasn't the above Spit IXLF a rather sorry performer.
It is the Mk IXLF in the following SL speed list:
SL speed :
Mk VIII 582 km/h
109G-2 : 530 km/h
Mk IX LF : 515 km/h
Mk IX HF 524 km/h

Note that it is slower than the high alt one.

Regards

Angus

Nashwan · « **Reply #48 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:54:09 PM »

Yes, the G2 chart is from Isegrim. It shows a G2 running at 1.42 ata (they were banned from using 1.42 ata until late 1943, by which time the G2 was out of service).

The Spit IX is an estimated figure for JL 165, which Isegrim has since claimed is wrong. Either the estimate is wrong, or JL 165 was simply much slower than contemporary Spit IXs.

Meyer · « **Reply #49 on:** October 11, 2004, 02:52:54 PM »

oops, i mixed up the colors

i thought the blue correspond to the G2, my bad. but what that charts prove? What was the speed at SL of the A-4?

Quote

Facts are that at low altitude the FW-190 was faster.

That's not true. Some 190 were faster than some 109s, and viceversa.

Crumpp · « **Reply #50 on:** October 11, 2004, 03:44:28 PM »

Quote

That's not true. Some 190 were faster than some 109s, and viceversa.

No it is true. What you see in many non-Rechlin and non-Focke Wulf flight test's is:

1. De-rated motors, which are rarely found in jagd-einsatz's and were only used as a stopgap until a rated power egg could be obtained. Fighter units could only operate a de-rated motor on a temporary basis in an airframe. Jabo's only received rated motors upon delivery of a new airframe or when a surplus of rated motors existed.

2. Jabo-einsatz's being tested and re-ballasted to simulate a fighter version. These are NOT fighters and are specialized for different ground attack roles. Comparing a ground attack version to a fighter is apples and oranges.

Here is an FW-190A3 to compare early versions.

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #51 on:** October 11, 2004, 03:53:04 PM »

So there was a vast performance difference between pure fighters and jabos? Werer the Jabos quite unusable as multi role?
And this:
"1. De-rated motors, which are rarely found in jagd-einsatz's and were only used as a stopgap until a rated power egg could be obtained. Fighter units could only operate a de-rated motor on a temporary basis in an airframe. Jabo's only received rated motors upon delivery of a new airframe or when a surplus of rated motors existed. "

How common would this usage be in tattered Germany?
Maybe allright on paper, but in reality?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #52 on:** October 11, 2004, 04:00:21 PM »

K4 with MW50 was faster on the deck than your claimed 340mph....

You dont really expect antone to belive that a 2000hp 109 was slower on the deck than a 1750hp Fw190A3...

And you know well enough that a 1600hp Fw190A2 was the same speed down low or maybe 10km/h faster than a 1300hp Bf109F4... And of course that the Bf109F4 whooped the Fw190A2 in mock fights between Gollob and a FW test pilot every time no matter who was flying which plane.

Crumpp I appreciate your enthisuasm for 190 and the new infop you bring out but I think you are incorrect here...

Angus · « **Reply #53 on:** October 11, 2004, 04:23:40 PM »

Bear in mind that Erhardt Milch hated Willy Messerchmitt....

Oh, Grunherz, source on what you said on Gordon Gollob and the 109 crew? Or some text

Btw, wasn't Gollob in Udets job?

An additional fact was that Milch also didn't like Udet. Just before Udet shot himself, they debated about the 190. I'll look it up and post later.

Regards

Angus

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #54 on:** October 11, 2004, 04:27:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Bear in mind that Erhardt Milch hated Willy Messerchmitt.

Maybe, and definitely so before the war. But then somebody at RLM seriously hated Kurt Tank in the late thirties and during the early part of the war because of the whole Fw187 twin engine fighter and Fw190/DB603 project cancellation debacles. Both were decisions to cancel world beating performers in favor of inferior Messerchmitt products...

The Fw190A2/Bf109F4 fights were between Gollob and an FW test pilot named Heirich Beuvais, they were done at Rechlin in December 1941 so Udet was out of the picture by that time. Source is the Fw190A book by Dieter Hermann.

Angus · « **Reply #55 on:** October 11, 2004, 04:36:29 PM »

Hehe Grun....the odds and ends of Nazi Germany.......

have something to type and post.

will be back in an hour or two.

Crumpp · « **Reply #56 on:** October 11, 2004, 05:06:27 PM »

Quote

K4 with MW50 was faster on the deck than your claimed 340mph....

Just showing the graph. The claim was made Grun that the 109 outperformed the FW-190. At higher altitudes it did. However the 109 and 190 worked together and complimented each others strengths very much like the Tempest and the Spitfire.

Quote

You dont really expect antone to belive that a 2000hp 109 was slower on the deck than a 1750hp Fw190A3...

Yes. The 109K was optimized for higher altitude combat. Down low the factors that effect performance are different. Check Perkins and Hage. Combine with engine performance variation and yes I do. Again just posting what the flight test's say. Feel free to post any on the Bf-109 to dispute them.

Level speeds for the FW-190V5. This is without armament and ballasted. This is the plane in which the "big wing" was tested:

Now for Gollobs tactical trials.
Here is the FW-190A2 (BMW 801C motor and restricted to 1.27ata@ 2400U/min climb and combat power; 1.32ata @ 2500U/min is a 3 min take off and emergency rating):

So you can see the speed development of the FW-190. It certainly did outperform the 109 down low. You have more than enough documentation to show the speed progress.

Quote

The Fw190A2/Bf109F4 fights were between Gollob and an FW test pilot named Heirich Beuvais, they were done at Rechlin in December 1941 so Udet was out of the picture by that time. Source is the Fw190A book by Dieter Hermann.

Good book. The manuverability quote comes right out of Gollobs report to the RLM from that trial. As you can see from the documentation you 1600PS is no where near correct for the power ratings of the FW-190A2 at the time. Had the BMW 801C been allowed to use 1.32ata @ 2700U/min as it later could then it would have developed more power.

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #57 on:** October 11, 2004, 05:07:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Hehe Grun....the odds and ends of Nazi Germany.......

I have sort of come to the conclusion that the whole country was essintyly psycho. This trait was responsible for all the things they did well and all the things they did poorly. Moreover I feel the two are inseperable, meaning that you probably could not have gotten them to do anything in a better way since all the stuff they did do well they did because they were crazy.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #58 on:** October 11, 2004, 05:18:02 PM »

The 2000hp was available on the deck, with 1800hp as takeoff power.

A clean 1800hp Bf109 will be faster than an 1800hp Fw190A if they are producing the same power at altitude X, regardless of altitude.

How else do you explain that a 1600hp Fw190 is only maybe 10kmh faster than a 1300hp Bf109?

Or if you think that a 2000hp Bf109K only does 340mph on the deck how slow do you think a 1300hp Bf109F is on the deck?

Also a 2000hp 360-375mph on the deck Bf109K matches the deck performance of the 2000hp SpitXIV very well - a plane you claim is high alt optimized. Plus the Bf109 was hardly a high alt fightewr in the east..

So I find the standard 370mph area a far more likely K4 deck speed than 340 mph based on one graph...

Crumpp · « **Reply #59 on:** October 11, 2004, 05:27:33 PM »

Quote

Or if you think that a 2000hp Bf109K only does 340mph on the deck how slow do you think a 1300hp Bf109F is on the deck?

Re read the documents. The power is listed for the FW-190 as well as the engine restrictions. The BMW 801C2 is a 1430PS Motor at FULL THROTTLE HEIGHT which is a lot higher than sea level. If you know about power development then it is a lot lower than it's FTH power on the deck. It is not yet rated to develop the full 1600PS it could later in it's life cycle.

Quote

Or if you think that a 2000hp Bf109K only does 340mph on the deck how slow do you think a 1300hp Bf109F is on the deck?

I think they are as fast as the speed listed in the documentation Grun. Please feel free to dispute it with facts and not with supposition.

Crumpp