Originally posted by Crumpp
Level accelleration:
While climb does factor into level accelleration an aircrafts top level speed does as well. At altitudes the FW-190 is faster it accellerates better than the 109.
Top Level speed has nothing to do with top level acceleration. If it would have, even the P-47 would accelerate as well or better than the FW 190. From tests we know the P-47 compared as a pig to the 190 in acceleration.
The reason for this that it has to do with powerloading and drag. In both factors, the 109 is superior to the 190, and therefore it accelerated better. :
Powerloading G-2/A-5 :
G-2 1475/3.03t = 487 HP/t
A-5 1800/4t = 450 HP/t
Powerloading K-4/D-9 :
K-4 2000/3.362 = 595 HP/t
D-9 2240/4.250 = 525 HP/t
109s have superior superior thrust/weight ratio.
From the max.speed/power requirements it`s also obvious the 109 had less overall drag.
Acceleration, as calculated by Greg Shaw. At SL, at Full Throttle, from 250mph TAS: (in feet/seconds)
109 K-4 : 6.85
190 D-9 : 6.05
109 G-14: 5.59
109 G-10: 5.50
190 A-8 : 4.97
109 G-2 : 4.62
109 G-6 : 4.22
This is outlined by 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 [than the La-5]".
Zoom climb:
The FW-190 was not a draggy airplane especially for a radial. With greater mass (more inertia), comparable drag, and better TW (accelleration) it outzooms the 109 at altitudes it is faster.
Since the FW 190 has inferior acceleration, slightly higher drag (evident from the max.speed/power requirements), inferior T/W (shown above), PLUS it`s slow speed characteristics are inferior (it will depart controlled flight much sooner at the top of it`s zoom), it`s clearly inferior to the Bf 109 in that respects, when the zoom is initiated from similiar speed.
As evidenced by actual flight tests :
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.
Dive Accelleration:
The same factors that make it zoom better than the 109 combine with gravity to leave the 109 behind at all altitudes.
For the same reasons it doesn`t zoom better (proven by tests), neither it gains speed as quickly in the dives. It looses height faster though, it`s sink rate being higher. For this very reason, it can`t zoom as well. This is again clearly shown in mentioned tests (Rechlin`s FvsA).
Dive Speed:
Just as the FW-190 always had better high speed manuverability it maintained this in the dive. It was able to achieve higher speeds because it could control the speeds. Pilot anecdotes claim as high as 1000kph. Not suprising. The book limit was 900kph.
The FW-190 could enter a 2 degree dive and gain substantial speed.
There are numerous accounts of 109s reaching "1000 km/h" in dives, so this hardly proves anything. Dive limits are just what the manufacturers dare to suggest as safe. As for high speed control, the 190 was better with lighter controls, but 109 pilots didn`t find it difficult to control the plane either at high speeds.
Level speed:
Again I would say TW.
Again the thrust/weight of the 109 was superior, so was it`s cleanness. It`s level speed was superior at all alttiudes in 1941, 1942, superior at high altitudes, inferior in low altitudes in 1943, superior at high altitudes, equal in low altitudes in 1944/45.
PS : Crumpp, unless you back up your claims with flight tests or direct comparisons, that`s my last word on the subject. I do not wish to discuss you subjective beliefs, as they are not proven right objectively, and they can`t be proven wrong to you anyways. My points are firmly backed up by the evidence of flight tests and direct comparisons, so I don`t have to prove any further.
