Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Naudet]

First i like to ask about Butch's Board, does he have opened a new one or put the old back on?
If yes, please give me a link to it, because that board was always a source of exellent discussions and informations.

I doubt the 190s cooling grills would be THAT serious.

I have numbers for the effect of the cooling flaps of the D9 at Steig-&Kampfleistung.
The difference between fully open and most streamlined position 2.6 (Way of the cooling flaps marked from 0-10, with 10 being fully open, 0 fully closed) is 20km/h per hour.


And i found the climb & speed charts for the JUMO213A powered Bf109.
Saddly they are only calculations and no real flight test data.
And i don't have them scanned, so i just can post a few things here.

Plane data:
Bf109 with JUMO213A
with gunpods and "Restabdeckungen"
Weight: 3600 kg

Estimated speed at SL was around 585km/h@1750PS and climb at SL is given as 19m/s@1750PS.

I also remember to have read somewhere that the Israelis used JUMO213 powered Bf109s in war of 1948.

Btw the report on that JUMO213 powered Bf109 includes alot of reference flight data for all kinds of Bf109s powerd by DB605s.
But there is no info if this reference data comes from flight tests or calculations.

[Crumpp]

Here is what I think is going on.

Willi Reschke is not lying or distorting the truth.  

He is flying a FW-190A8/R11, all weather version of the FW-190A8.  Makes sense.  He is in JG301, one of the two JG's designated all weather daylight units after  being transferred from single engine night fighter duty.

The FW-190A8/R11 was not produced with any other engine except the BMW-801TS.

So we know Willi is flying a more powerful motor than the BMW801D2.

Add in the wide chord prop and their is no doubt the FW-190A8/R11 he flew represented a increase in climb performance over the Bf-109G6/AS he transitioned from.

Here we can estabilish a base of climb performance for the 801F motor:



Now we can cross reference that base and check out the influence of prop width on climb:



Since I don't have a Bf-109G6 climb chart we can use this 109K chart.  The 109K is the best climbing 109 and it looks to me like the FW-190 enters the same ballpark below 5000 meters.



So the FW-190A's were faster at low altitudes, more manuverable, better armed, possed a similar sustained climb and outzoomed the 109, could reverse faster and accellerate better.  

JG301 had one group of these, to be replaced with the Bf 109K-4/R6.

Yes IIRC these went to the one gruppe that still retained the single engine night fighter mission.  The FW-190A8/R11's were needed in the daylight all-weather gruppes.

Crumpp

[HoHun]

Hi Naudet,

>I also remember to have read somewhere that the Israelis used JUMO213 powered Bf109s in war of 1948.

That was the Jumo 211, unfortunately. The aircraft reportedly had poor performance and terrible handling.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Meyer]

Here's one picture of an israelian S-199:




A closer look of the Avia:

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/s199ng_1.html

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Here is what I think is going on.
Willi Reschke is not lying or distorting the truth.  
He is flying a FW-190A8/R11, all weather version of the FW-190A8.  Makes sense.  He is in JG301, one of the two JG's designated all weather daylight units after  being transferred from single engine night fighter duty.
The FW-190A8/R11 was not produced with any other engine except the BMW-801TS. So we know Willi is flying a more powerful motor than the BMW801D2.
Add in the wide chord prop and their is no doubt the FW-190A8/R11 he flew represented a increase in climb performance over the Bf-109G6/AS he transitioned from.

That explains why 109`s Gruppen were assigned for high cover of FW 190s and not vica versa.




Here we can estabilish a base of climb performance for the 801F motor:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1104588952_translated-fwchart.jpg

It says 11.7 m/sec at 5.7km height.
Vs. 17.8 m/sec for the K-4 (not using MW50), and 13 m/sec at Kampfleistung.
G-2 did 17.4 m/sec at 5km w. Kampfleistung.

The FW 190A is massively inferior in ROC.

Now we can cross reference that base and check out the influence of prop width on climb:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1104589951_propwidthclimb.jpg
[/b]

Hmm, maybe you can, but it doesn`t give any clue about the ROC curve for the "190A" - at what weight, what power ? I see a number of unlabeled curves, no indication of what they refer to, with 3 different scales for every curve..




Since I don't have a Bf-109G6 climb chart we can use this 109K chart.  The 109K is the best climbing 109 and it looks to me like the FW-190 enters the same ballpark below 5000 meters.

Hmm, 17 m/s is in the same ballpark as 11, then I think your perception is *highly subjective*. As for ROC, the 109K wasn`t the best, that prize probably goes to some earlier G; it was the fastest, however.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1104590079_109kclimb.jpg



So the FW-190A's were faster at low altitudes,

The fastest 190A in you chart can do 578 kph. That`s definietely slower than the 109K at 593/607, and not much of a difference to the G-14`s 568kph, also slower than the G-10/DC.

more manuverable,

That`s laughable. German test of LA-5FN notes :

"Turning times at ground level are better than of those of the 8-190, and worser than of those of the 8-109."
Stall characteristics were simply uncomparable of the two, the 190 was known to be one of, if not the most vicious,  the 109 was known to be one of, if not the most benign.


better armed,

False. Depends on what variant. The *lightened* FW 190 you prefer in you comparisions wasn`t, 2xMG151/20 doesn`t worth the MK 108 on the 109.


possed a similar sustained climb

False (and quite ridiculus)
You chart shows 19.6 minutes required for 10km altitude for the best FW. The 109K/G required ~13.7 mins to do that. G-2 could do in 11:54", at 1.3ata.


and outzoomed the 109,

False, in the AFDU tests the Mustang outzoomed the FW 190. But it was found equal with the 109G.

Tempest Tactical Trials, zoom climb :

vs. FW 190A
"Because of the Tempest V's speed and clean lines however, the Tempest has a markedly better zoom climb, where the speed is kept high. "

vs. Mustang III
"At similar performance height the Tempest has a better zoom climb. "

vs Me 109G
"The Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed, but if the Tempest has an initial advantage, it will hold this advantage easily providing the speed is kept over 250 mph. "


Conclusion :
109G easily outzoomed the FW 190A.


could reverse faster

True.


and accellerate better.

False. The Bf 109G/K had MARKEDLY better powerloading and much lower drag, therefore it will accelerate better than the FW 190A or D. This is also proven by calculations and tests.

German test of LA-5FN notes :

"[the Bf109`s] Acceleration is probably comparable [to the La-5]".
and
"Because of it`s higher weight, the 8-190 accelerates less well".


So advantage (1944):

Speed :
Low alt : undecided
High alt : 109
Manouveribilty :
Turning : 109
Roll rate : 190
Handling : 109
Armament :
light 190 : undecided
norm.190 : 190
Climb : 109, hands down
Zoom : 109
Acceleration : 109

Hmm, out ten categories, the 109s wins 6, gets parity in 2..

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Naudet
First i like to ask about Butch's Board, does he have opened a new one or put the old back on?
If yes, please give me a link to it, because that board was always a source of exellent discussions and informations.

Drop me a mail ! Executor@index.hu !

As for the projected datasets, I think I have those, iirc they`re from niklas`s site, in PDF format, right?

[Angus]

Happy new year Izzy.
This here:
"Hmm, 17 m/s is in the same ballpark as 11, then I think your perception is *highly subjective*. As for ROC, the 109K wasn`t the best, that prize probably goes to some earlier G; it was the fastest, however. "

Do you have some data of this? From memory I had 109K as the finest climber, going to 20K within 5 minutes, and the fastest of the 109 series.
But that's just me, - on new years day,,,,,

Then on to the 109 and 190 comparison.....
Both series promote a very wide range of loadouts and power, so be wary, well, actually if someone has a lot of source, it would be very interesting to see a performance comparison where wheight and power is similar.
There is a ton of graphs on this thread, but a parallel comparison could be looked at with only 2 or 4.
(I'd fix that up if I had endless time and an Excel hobby)

Oh, as a final, the English word WORSE goes BAD-WORSE-WORST.
(Nein, nicht WURST)
There is no WORSER.........

[Crumpp]

You need to reread those charts Izzy.

Your wearing your 109 blinders.  The dotted line is emergency power and the scale raps arounds.  The FW-190 climbs at 21-22 M/sec for the first few kilometers.  It's comparable with the solid emergency power setting on the 109K chart.  After about 3 km's the 109K outlcimbs it.

It's not undecided on the speed.  EVERY comparison of an BMW801D2 or later powered 190 and a 109 where the planes are compared side by side in level speed the FW-190 is significantly faster.  

I have a letter from a mixed 109G6/FW-190A8 JG complaining about the difficulty of joint operations.  The 109's have to be allowed time to climb to altitude so they can keep up with the 190's.

You seem to want to diminish the importance of roll rate.  I suggest you read Shaw's book and study up on agility.  It is only unimportant in sims that artificially over emphasize turn ability.  

The documents are there.  If you compare FW-190 contemparies with their 109 counterpart, the 190 was the better fighter.

Will Reschke is telling the truth about his experience flying both the 109 and the 190.

As for accelleration you need to get the whole report.  

This report represent a fledgling design BMW801C2 powered 190 vs what most consider the pinacle of 109 development.  

The BMW801C2's "Emergency Power" rating is 1.32 ata @ 2700U/min for just 2 minutes.  

It's climb and combat rating is 1.27ata @ 2400U/min.  

Add in the hundreds of horsepower the 801D series gains and this situation changes dramatically.  When the 801TS/TU/TH series begin showing up the 109 is left further behind.  The Dora simply eliminates the 109 from the running for all practical purposes.



What you are saying Izzy is contrary to Luftwaffe flight test comparisions, Luftwaffe veteran testimony, and Allied pilot anecdotes.  

Crumpp

[GScholz]

Crumpp, AFAIK in AH the 190A-8 is faster than the 109G-6 down low.

[Angus]

Well, in AH the 109G2 climbs to 20 as fast as the perked Spitfire XIV,,,,,,,

[Crumpp]

Crumpp, AFAIK in AH the 190A-8 is faster than the 109G-6 down low.

It is and it should be that way.  Problem is in AH we don't have the 801TS powered 190A8's that appeared at the same time as the G10.

That explains why 109`s Gruppen were assigned for high cover of FW 190s and not vica versa.

Izzy,  You need to read some Luftwaffe Doctrine.  The only units of FW-190's that required escort where the Sturmstaffles.  The JG's flying air superiority versions of the FW-190A did not use escorts.  The "high" cover may or may not have been 109's.  In fact when the 109's used gondies you can find 190's escorting them!

Facts are:

The Bf-109 did not have the punch for an average Luftwaffe pilot to have ANY chance of bringing down a single bomber with the 109's entire ammo load.

Put the Gondies on a 109 and it barely has the required punch but loses the performance to survive against the escorting allied fighters.

The FW-190 carried the punch to deal with the bombers and the performance to fight the escorting allied fighters.  

Add in the fact the 109 did have better high altitude performance without the gondies than the FW-190A and it makes sense.  

Rather than leave the 109's on the field or waste them in useless attacks that have no chance of succeding for the average pilot, it only makes sense to put them in the high cover staffle.  Then your punch can deal with just bombers and not both fighters and bombers.

Least they can help out with the defense.  So you do see 109's used for that purpose.  Certainly not for the reason's you make it out to be.  

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Your wearing your 109 blinders.  The dotted line is emergency power and the scale raps arounds.  The FW-190 climbs at 21-22 M/sec for the first few kilometers.  It's comparable with the solid emergency power setting on the 109K chart.  After about 3 km's the 109K outlcimbs it.

Hmm, I am not wearing any blinders, Crummp.
I don`t see the weight of that plane in the first place, second, I don`t make ridiculus claims about the 190 beating the 109 in climb, turning, acceleration, zoom climb etc..

Besides, you chart says : "o. MW". Ohne MW Crummp. The 109K`s doing an easy ride w/o full WEP on the chart.



It's not undecided on the speed.  EVERY comparison of an BMW801D2 or later powered 190 and a 109 where the planes are compared side by side in level speed the FW-190 is significantly faster.

If there are so many around, why couldn`t you show just one..?

The one you showed, shows the FW 190A being slower at ALL altitudes, expect near SL.
The one I showed, shows the FW 190A slower at ALL altitudes.

In fact the only time the 190 ever enjoyed any speed advantage (and strictly at near SL) over the 109 was in 1943, when 109s not yet had MW50, but 190s were cleared to full power.



I have a letter from a mixed 109G6/FW-190A8 JG complaining about the difficulty of joint operations.  The 109's have to be allowed time to climb to altitude so they can keep up with the 190's.

Irrevelant, as we know from flightspecs the 190A couldn`t even hope to catch up with the 109G. I can put up the A-8 for you, but it will be ugly...what, the A-8 could do 14.5 m/sec on Kampleistung, don`t make me laugh about this being as good as the 20m/sec on the 109Gs..

Crumpp, why were 109G groups assigned to provide high cover for 190 groups? Maybe because of the latter`s climb rate and altitude performance? Nah!




You seem to want to diminish the importance of roll rate.  I suggest you read Shaw's book and study up on agility.  It is only unimportant in sims that artificially over emphasize turn ability.

Roll rate is just ONE aspect, Crummp. You attempt to show it as the ONLY aspect, the only reason for this being that is the ONLY advantage in manouveribilty the 190 has over the 109. In ALL other respects of manouveribilty, the 109 is superior. Sad but true.


The documents are there.  If you compare FW-190 contemparies with their 109 counterpart, the 190 was the better fighter.

That`s nothing else than just parrotting the same crumpp, and it`s utterly unconvincing.

But OK.
JG 52 vs. what FW 190 Jagdgeschwader?
Erich Hartmann vs. what FW 190 ace?
And don`t start the blahblah about 109s longer service time. Hartmann started scoring 2 years after the 190s were there.
In 1944, 109s had to escort 190s, this should tell you something about their anti fighter capabilities!


Will Reschke is telling the truth about his experience flying both the 109 and the 190.

Probably, but his view is just one, and is subjective. Anecdotes can be used to show anything. Tobak Tibor on the other hand describes how a 190 took his G-10 for a rumanian one and jumped on him. He started climbing, left the 190 in the dust, outmanouvered him with a spiral climb, and when he was on the other`s six he come next to the other plane and showed with international sign what he thinks about the 190 pilots mental ability... right after turning the tables!


As for accelleration you need to get the whole report.

The report shows the FW 190 is significantly behind of the Bf 109 at all but the lowest altitudes after 3 mins, Crummp.
The Rechlin La-5 report also states the FW 190`s acceleration is inferior to the Bf 109G`s.
Calculations also shows the FW 190`s acceleration is inferior to the Bf 109G`s.
Even pure reason tells the FW 190`s acceleration is inferior to the Bf 109G`s.

And you can`t show anything that would disprove it.



This report represent a fledgling design BMW801C2 powered 190 vs what most consider the pinacle of 109 development.  

Show another Crummp, I`m open to new things, but appearantly you have nothing up your sleeves..


Add in the hundreds of horsepower the 801D series gains and this situation changes dramatically.

Right, if you compare a late 1944 190 to a `41 109...
Put the 605D in the 109 and Anton will beg for mercy.



When the 801TS/TU/TH series begin showing up the 109 is left further behind.

You know I wonder, Crummp, how could the 4300kg+ 190A w. 2000 HP 801TS even hope to catch up with the 3300kg 109G/K w. 2000 HP...? Physics thrown out of the window?

That`s your wishful thinking. But I asked for specs of the TS/TU/TH, an you couldn`t even provide.. actually it seems you claim superiority based on an engine that`s capabilities you don`t even know..


The Dora simply eliminates the 109 from the running for all practical purposes.

Really, let`s see :



190 honor in the dust !

Basically the 1942 109G at minimum boost matches/exceeds the late 1944 190D at maximum boost... and the 109K just runs it over.


http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1104616805_190vs109.jpg

I have this page in German original, Crumpp, I already qouted it.


What you are saying Izzy is contrary to Luftwaffe flight test comparisions, Luftwaffe veteran testimony, and Allied pilot anecdotes.

= Blahblahblah.  I don`t have that much time, Crumpp, so spare me of this, and show what facts you have to offer.

[GScholz]

Yeah, I'd like to see the 190's redone as well, however I don't think we can expect a game designer to put as many hours into research as you have done. It is not unreasonable for HTC to model the 190 series the way they have done since the current performance is the general impression people have of these planes. Would be nice to see them redone, but I'd expect a lot of whining from Allied fans ignorant of the true nature of the 190.

(Btw. it's staffel, not staffle. Common misspelling I know, just make sure it doesn't make it into your book )

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Facts are:

The Bf-109 did not have the punch for an average Luftwaffe pilot to have ANY chance of bringing down a single bomber with the 109's entire ammo load.

[/B]

Good thing you tell me it`s a fact, because at the first read, I was convinced it`s a joke.

I have no idea about the 109`s punch to bring down a bomber, really. We should ask those B-24 crews who survived Ploeisti.. and the 109G. Or the ones that met the 101st Puma`s 109Gs.

Not to mention this... http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5496306

Put the Gondies on a 109 and it barely has the required punch but loses the performance to survive against the escorting allied fighters.

[/B]

With gondies on, it had 3x20mm cannons. That`s comparable to the 190`s 2 or 4 cannons.

Put to Gondies on, and it will lose 10-15 kph speed (still faster than the 190A at altitude), and ca. 2 m/sec (still climbs as good as the 190A).

[Crumpp]

You know I wonder, Crummp, how could the 4300kg+ 190A w. 2000 HP 801TS even hope to catch up with the 3300kg 109G/K w. 2000 HP...? Physics thrown out of the window?

Check out Perkins & Hage because it more than fits the physics.
109G6's did not have 2000 hp.  Only the 109K and the 109G10 had that power.

The FW-190 equals the sustained climb of the 109 only at low altitudes and only in a few models.  

Willi Reschke's statement holds true as I pointed out for his time period.  I never stated it was a constant.

Lets see for speeds at sea level which are a constant after the 801C powered 190's:

Bf-109G14 at emergency power:



FW-190A8:



Or we can look at some graphs:





All which show that only Bf-109K was in the FW-190's ball park at Take-off and Emergency power.

At low altitudes the 109s only real advantage is in SUSTAINED turn.  Any high speed manuvering the 190 is much better.  
Level accelleration, zoom climb, Dive accelleration/Speed, Agility, and level speed belong to the FW-190.

Proof is above.

Nice Chart BTW.  You have some skills on Power Point.  Do you own the full version of Office 2000?

Crumpp