Author Topic: Bf109 vs Fw190 speed at low level (Read 5398 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **on:** October 11, 2004, 10:13:59 PM »

Never mind this thred. My intal concern was based on faulty data...

Krusty · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2004, 10:19:21 PM »

lmao

Dude.. there are SO many other factors BESIDES horsepower that affect speed.

That, and the K4 was a high-alt variant. NOT meant for use at low level.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2004, 10:40:31 PM »

Grunherz,

For some reason the drag of the radial engine does not account for as much as one would expect. Look at the early F4U-1. 2,000HP and 345MPH at sea level with 314 sq ft of wing area.

My guess is the paristic effect of the supercharger in the K-4 didn't help much down low either.

Did the 190 use direct air injection(ram air)?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2004, 10:40:48 PM »

High drag radial? Don't tell the Russians that > La-7.

Meyer · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2004, 10:52:22 PM »

The K-4 was WAY faster than that.

Glasses · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:05:30 PM »

I'd say Kurt Tank, yet I just got back from Nellis AFB and I got pictures news at 11

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #6 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:19:09 PM »

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2004, 11:44:40 PM »

Never mind this thread. I just found out Crumpp was basing his figures on some very early prototype 109K4 that did not produce close to the the low alt power of the real production machine with MW50..

Crumpp · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2004, 06:15:49 AM »

Here are the best charts for the Bf-109K that I have:

The original claim was that the Bf-109 was always faster than the FW-190 throughout the war and at all altitudes. Below 6 Km the FW-190 is faster. The two fighters complemented each other much like the Tempest and the Spitfire. At high altitudes the 109 was the better performer. Down low the FW-190 took the lead.

In fact the Bf-109K is the only variant to match the FW-190A's low-level speed. Of course it's contemporary, the Dora, is much faster on the deck especially when using MW50.

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:29:32 AM »

Ummm...
How does that rack up against Tempests and Lala's?

Angus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2004, 08:31:20 AM »

Oh, BTW, the charts are rather unclear.
I'll see if I can get a friend of mine (Graphic's man) to clean them up a bit.
If it succeeds, Crumpp, I'l mail them to you again.
You'll need them in a clean form for your book anyway

Meyer · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:46:25 AM »

The K-4 was faster at SL than the K-14 (2000ps vs 1700ps).

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:48:05 AM »

Those charts are worthless Crummp, and you know it. They are dated April 44 when no Bf109K4 existed. If any 109K was around then it waa rough in develolment prototype with a rough in development engine. Also it is without MW50.
How dare do you pass this on as representative in service Bf109K data is beyond me, its practically lying...

Angus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:04:46 PM »

Or being clumsy?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2004, 12:13:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Or being clumsy?

Maybe. But i'm guessing that Crummp is extremly familiar with reading charts so i dont accaept that simple mistake. Especially considerng how ademant and arrognat he was concerninmg that chart.

Furthermore he should know that there were no in service Bf109K4 in aprill 44 or late 43 whenb these supposed "tests" were conducted... So at best those were early rough development prototypes with early rough undeveloped engines... Especially so considering the way he jumped all over me when I refernced some early dora protopype data which showed it to be extremly slow. He immediately denounced it as worthless because it was an undeveloped prototype, but curiously he would not allow the thought that the 109K data from late 1943 might be an early undeveoped prototype with unrepresentave performance...

Also its clear none of those curves show an MW50 Bf109K4. So that being an in developent engine, with no MW 50 lord knows how little power it produced.

Also the charts shoedca K4 with GM1, something the rea; inservice K4 did not mount. GM1 is a high alt sysyem thats pretty useless down low.. The eal 109K4 mounted MW50 for low to medium alt boost.

So that data, that crap prototype data is nowhere near representave of a real fully developed MW50 109K4..

Finally I asked him the other day if he tjought that a 2000HP Bf109K4 should be that slow and he showed thae charts to me as evidence of in service 109k performance.

And of course he was adamrnt about it...

There are just too many decietful things to make me think it was a simple unbiased mistake... Especially coming from a guy who fancies himself ecxpert enough on the subject of LW planes to consider writing a book on it...

Of course I would forgive the incident if Crummp admits the data is worthless and highly unrepresentave of a fully developed in service Bf109K4...